(04-28-2018 04:18 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 07:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors

This time around the networks have a vested interest in getting it done in secret before new competitors can jump in. And ESPN/FOX are in a best position to work it out in secret, renegotiate deals, and extend contracts. Now how that might interfere with what the conferences may want is another matter.

A couple of years or so back, the BIG & SEC led the effort to prevent the ACC proposal to pursue self-determination in choosiing the format for a fb conference championship. Thus, the option to create 3 pods, @ 5 teams each, wasn't approved. The majority vote was to retain divisions, plus allowing even a 10 member conference (B12) to stage a CCG.
So unless the rules change, adding #15 would essentially require #16.
Murdcu's idea could happen if #15 (say OU) becomes a commitment, and #16 is still in negotiation, with a back-up available if the prime preference for #16 does not materialize. So, the window to add #16 could technically remain open until the future conference scheduling becomes required. But any school that commits to leave, wants to depart as soon as eligible and get incorporated into the scheduling of the new conference. That usually means not playing more than one additional season in the old conference. Mizzou following Texas A&M to the SEC moved fast; and they do so in these situations.
Assuming OU garners #15, and Texas is the #16 uncommitted preference, the time period for Texas to remain on the fence would be a matter of weeks, maybe several months, but not longer due to scheduling logistics.
This OU-oSu-UT pot ential dilemma is understandable, but complex. Texas holds cards, as does OU,
IF the BIG and/or the PAC12 are rendering competitive offers, with whatever network backing behind them, would be solidly on the table. On surface, the SEC would look to be in the driver's seat whe:
Texas will be intriguing. My expectation is that they will first try to hold the B12 together if improved network backing happens. Texas has all the other major conference options, but none are ideal, but certainly stacked in terms of favorabilities.

Texas holds all of the cards, and all that Oklahoma can do is wait for Texas to play their hand.
If Oklahoma could get an invitation to the B1G with Kansas.....then what?
Well for one they are in a division with Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. Not bad, but for a fan base that has complained about poor home scheduling, that's not a lineup that would inspire a lot of folks in Oklahoma to rush out and buy season tickets.
The PAC? They have already been turned down by the PAC in the past, and then there is the money thing.
So in actuality there is not much that Oklahoma could do except wait to find out what Tejas will let them do.
In Texas' perfect world they would join the SEC on a Notre Dame type deal, but with fewer games that what Notre Dame plays. Maybe annual contests with A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma and possibly one other floating game. Then they could still cherry pick the B1G (Michigan, Ohio State) the PAC (USC), and the AAC (USF, UCF) ad play the rest of their games against their Texas pals (TT, Baylor, TCU, Rice).
This deal is not really feasible in the ACC in that the ACC wants to increase Notre Dame's commitment not reduce it, Tejas wouldn't want to have to play 6 ACC schools, and the ACC couldn't get an extra game out of Notre Dame if Texas only committed to play 3 or 4.
Then the dilemma becomes would the SEC accept a partial?
JR screams NO! But look who the winner is.....ESPN.
They can use Texas and Notre Dame to access USC (the only PAC team that anyone east of the Rockies would ever watch) and access to the B1G without having to buy a huge chunk of programming.
The benefit for the SEC (and the ACC)? Adding a team (Oklahoma) or two guarantees a contract adjustment and wins an extension. Why would the SEC want an extension? Monetary security in an uncertain business environment.
So, ideally the SEC adds Oklahoma (alone) and Texas as a partial, and the ACC adds West Virginia (alone), and ESPN increases access to outside inventory without paying for it and locks up it's own inventory for the foreseeable future.